If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Armor and you!

05-28-2010, 06:29 PM

Whenever I play on the TG server (or any server for that matter), I always see the same thing: Some player jumps in the armor and drives it right into the city to a flag or mcom. They then sit there for about 30 seconds trying to do some dmg untill they get blown up in a very violent fashion.
Why does everyone do this? Whats the point?

I you were on foot would you right straight to the flag and stand there shooting at stuff till you get killed? No (Well some people are bound to do that, but lets not talk about that). So why do you think its a good idea to do that with armor?

The way I like to play armor is to stay a bit away from the action in as much cover as I can get and act as support for the infantry by lobbing shells at the stuff thats trying to kill them. That way I (Usually) dont get killed in 30 seconds, and can sometimes get a tank to last me the whole round.
At the same time I'm much more useful because I'm constantly pressuring their infantry to stay in cover, leaving my infantry more space to outmaneuver them.
If I happen to catch the flashing red disease (aka tracer dart), I try to make it as hard as possible for their engineers to get a rocket to me as possible, preferably by hiding behind some kinda wall.

The other which is used to make an opportunity that can be capitalized on if coordinated correctly. The armor rush strategy is more prevalent in... rush mode(due to the nature of the game mode, make an opening, destroy the mcom, repeat).

The other which is used to make an opportunity that can be capitalized on if coordinated correctly. The armor rush strategy is more prevalent in... rush mode(due to the nature of the game mode, make an opening, destroy the mcom, repeat).

Sure, that might work, but that requires coordination, which is not present in the scenario I was talking about. It also require a map with more than 1 armor asset to be even kinda effective.

Comment

There needs to be a balance, and through experience you can begin to understand where adrenaline-junkie rushing should be used, and where sniper-like calm would be more beneficial.

You say that you're for defensive and conservative armor use, and against rushing and furious assault with armor. That kind of thinking is, on a more basic level, a forcing of a solution on the problem. You're forcing the armor to act in a certain way, regardless of the situation. Armor, like infantry, and most anything else, should adapt to the situation. The question shouldn't be "how should I play armor?" -- it should be "how should I use armor in this particular situation to gain the most benefit for my team?"

There are definitely instances where a mad rush with armor is preferable to defensive tank-sniping with armor. For example, on the first stage of Port Valdez, a fast and furious assault with the T90 and BMD into the pit of Bravo almost guarantees Bravo -- one of the most difficult MCOMs to take on the entire map.
In an almost identical setup -- rush assault on 1st set of MCOMs -- this time on Arica Harbor, a different strategy is better. Using the tanks in a very defensive manner to stay safe and destroy the MCOMs from a distance -- is a better course of action. It's more beneficial to the team.

What I aim to say is -- tanks, armor, infantry, weapons -- all should be used in a manner that derives the most benefit for the team in that particular situation. The tool shouldn't dictate how you play the game: the situation should dictate what you do to adapt, including what tools to use, and how to use those tools.

Comment

There needs to be a balance, and through experience you can begin to understand where adrenaline-junkie rushing should be used, and where sniper-like calm would be more beneficial.

You say that you're for defensive and conservative armor use, and against rushing and furious assault with armor. That kind of thinking is, on a more basic level, a forcing of a solution on the problem. You're forcing the armor to act in a certain way, regardless of the situation. Armor, like infantry, and most anything else, should adapt to the situation. The question shouldn't be "how should I play armor?" -- it should be "how should I use armor in this particular situation to gain the most benefit for my team?"

There are definitely instances where a mad rush with armor is preferable to defensive tank-sniping with armor. For example, on the first stage of Port Valdez, a fast and furious assault with the T90 and BMD into the pit of Bravo almost guarantees Bravo -- one of the most difficult MCOMs to take on the entire map.
In an almost identical setup -- rush assault on 1st set of MCOMs -- this time on Arica Harbor, a different strategy is better. Using the tanks in a very defensive manner to stay safe and destroy the MCOMs from a distance -- is a better course of action. It's more beneficial to the team.

What I aim to say is -- tanks, armor, infantry, weapons -- all should be used in a manner that derives the most benefit for the team in that particular situation. The tool shouldn't dictate how you play the game: the situation should dictate what you do to adapt, including what tools to use, and how to use those tools.

Just to echo what Zhohar wrote (and Zho please correct me if I have misinterpreted you): Sometimes tactically the armor should be sacrificed particularly when assaulting flags/objectives. Taking aggressive action with armor forces puts pressure on defenders to eliminate that threat while allowing assaulting infantry to achieve the objective of destroying the mcom or capturing the flag.

Comment

I agree with both Zho and AB on this one, it depends on the situation. For instance, what good is keeping the armor alive the entire round when your team is having trouble getting and holding a single flag on conquest? Armor should be used to support infantry, not the other way around. Sometimes infantry following armor onto an objective can be a better use of it than just using it to bombard the enemy from afar.

Comment

There needs to be a balance, and through experience you can begin to understand where adrenaline-junkie rushing should be used, and where sniper-like calm would be more beneficial.

You say that you're for defensive and conservative armor use, and against rushing and furious assault with armor. That kind of thinking is, on a more basic level, a forcing of a solution on the problem. You're forcing the armor to act in a certain way, regardless of the situation. Armor, like infantry, and most anything else, should adapt to the situation. The question shouldn't be "how should I play armor?" -- it should be "how should I use armor in this particular situation to gain the most benefit for my team?"

There are definitely instances where a mad rush with armor is preferable to defensive tank-sniping with armor. For example, on the first stage of Port Valdez, a fast and furious assault with the T90 and BMD into the pit of Bravo almost guarantees Bravo -- one of the most difficult MCOMs to take on the entire map.
In an almost identical setup -- rush assault on 1st set of MCOMs -- this time on Arica Harbor, a different strategy is better. Using the tanks in a very defensive manner to stay safe and destroy the MCOMs from a distance -- is a better course of action. It's more beneficial to the team.

What I aim to say is -- tanks, armor, infantry, weapons -- all should be used in a manner that derives the most benefit for the team in that particular situation. The tool shouldn't dictate how you play the game: the situation should dictate what you do to adapt, including what tools to use, and how to use those tools.

Well you're right. There is situations where its a good idea to roll your tank up in the face of the enemy, however I find that this is very much situational. I actually find the opposite strategy the most viable in your first example. I've had both tanks rush the pit on port valdez, and its relatively easy to dispatch them if you have 2-3 engineers down there. Tracer then both when you first see them and you'll have taken most of their health off before they can get to you.
On the other hand I had success with sitting on the road down towards the first 2 mcoms in the tank and shelling the area around B to ease the infantry's advance.

One thing to remember before rushing in with armor however, is to never do it without infantry support. If you have no infantry support its usually pretty much suicide. An exception to that could be on atacama if your home flag is getting overrun by 1-2 infantry. If you're the only one around its usually better to just drive up to the flag and deal with the infantry.

I might be wrong in my theories though, seeing as I've played PR for a while and has been conditioned to never waste assets :P.

Comment

Armor in this game should be used differently depending on what mode you are playing. If we talking about rush mode it is preferable to stay back if you can destroy objective from distance. In some cases when you can't destroy objective from distance like Arica Harbor garage in second turn armor push is necessary when infantry have hard time getting there. Conquest however is different, if your team is loosing by holding less flags you need to push with armor if available or face a defeat. I know the ticket bleed is very slow and if you hold one flag and have a huge ticket lead its better to stay back and defend as long as the other team keeps on attacking.

sigpic

Comment

Sitting back doing support typically generates the following comments in chat and ts...'stop camping and get in the fight noob!' or 'stop worrying about your kdr!!!' or other similar comments. Then if your team loses, the loud mouths blame the camper in the tank working on his kdr who screwed the team.

Battlefield Samurai 'Banzaaaiii!!!

Comment

Depends on the map type and the situation you're dealing with. But in general...

Rush:
Armor can be an extremely effective bullet shield for infantry but it rarely gets used as such (granted, with CG's massive radius of effect, this can be understandable--infantry already are a spam target of CG, putting them next to a tank just increases the draw). Additionally, V.Spec Smoke can turn armor into a moving fortress if used intelligently (and as an aside, smoking a wookie hatchery with the UAV can be so gratifying).
Rushing to the MCOM is usually the wrong way to do things since you're not likely to deal much damage before you're greased. Raining fire from a distance, however, can make a huge difference, particularly if you're in a position hard to counter.

Conquest:
For Conquest, I've rarely found it to be useful to sacrifice the armor on a flag, you're just too vulnerable to have any noticeable effect on the flag in most locations, even if you have an absurd amount of support (and you might actually cause more problems for the infantry because armor tends to draw a lot of specialized fire--a Recon might opt to just try and shoot a group of infantry one at a time but if they see armor, they're pretty much guaranteed to call in a Mortar if they can).
As stupid as this next idea might sound, you need to apply the MMORPG parlance of "tank" to your tank/armor--distraction, harassment, and deterrence are the key features. The less you can be ignored and the longer you can keep it up, the better.

Zerging is stupid when you're infantry. It's not any less stupid if you have a vehicle.

Comment

Just to make a brief comment, unless the armor can shell the MCOM from a safe location, I'm not a fan of armor just sitting back and supporting infantry by suppressing the defenders. Based on my experience, that pretty much digs the defense in, making it HARDER for infantry to attack given how nested in the defenders are. Without the armor pushing, the defenders can sit back and let the attackers come to them. As an attacker, a defense that's settled in is pretty hard to penetrate.

I'll admit, I come from a very aggressive style of play, so unless the armor can really affect the defenders from a safe distance, I prefer the armor to go in and disrupt the defense. The defense is forced to adjust with the presence of armor, and allows the infantry to attack more efficiently since the defense has to worry about armor AND infantry pushing the lines.